eChurch Blog

Marc Cortez has a nice post up simply asking readers what they are currently reading.

At the moment I’m reading Sister Wendy on Prayer by Sister Wendy Beckett. A straightforward, no nonsense guide to the simplicity of prayer, nicked from my wife.

I’m really excited as the The Royal College of Psychiatrists are sending me through a review copy of Spirituality and Psychiatry.

Here’s the gumpf:

Spirituality is a crucial but sometimes overlooked aspect of mental well-being and psychiatric care. This book explores the nature of spirituality, its relationship to religion, and the reasons for its importance in clinical practice.

In this evidence-based text, the authors discuss the prevention and management of illness, as well as the maintenance of recovery. Different chapters focus on the key subspecialties of psychiatry, including psychotherapy, child and adolescent psychiatry, intellectual disability psychiatry, substance misuse psychiatry and old age psychiatry. It contains references to up-to-date research and provides a comprehensive review of the relevant academic literature. The book is, at least in part, a response to the questions posed by researchers, service users and clinicians, concerning the importance of spirituality in mental healthcare.

Contributors include psychiatrists, psychotherapists, mental healthcare chaplains and a social worker. They discuss aspects of experience often omitted from psychiatry and present both clinician and service user perspectives.

This book is edited by Professor Andrew Sims whose work on the intersection of faith and spirituality with psychiatry I’ve long admired.

I’m planning on reviewing the book here and may well tackle it chapter by chapter, we’ll see.

What are you reading at the moment, or what have you enjoyed reading recently? Any genre permitted.

I’ve nicked the term ‘cold hearted republicans’ from the Church Mouse who uses this to describe those who were not moved by the royal wedding.

I agree and note that some republicans went as far as to organise Not the Royal Wedding republican street party’s.

Well everyone to their own.

Personally I loved the ceremony and joy and spirituality and love and hope of yesterday’s wedding and I don’t normally “do” this kind of thing. It was lovely to read so many Christian blogs celebrating this union.

The spiritual aspect, the liturgy, the homily, the beautiful music, the wonderful portrayal of the sacrament of holy matrimony, the worship, the prayers, all of it was stunning. Not just stunning, but sacred as well.

All of this stands in rather stark contrast to Ekklesia’s coverage.

I’ll put this as nicely as I can – and I’ve already been accused by Simon Barrow of “sleighting his integrity” – but the entire Ekklesia coverage came across as mean-spirited and frankly pompous in itself.

Here’s a link to Simon Barrow’s piece and here’s a link to Sanda Ramage’s piece for you to check out the flavour of the Ekklesia view on this to see what I mean.

Both of these pieces are under copyright and so I’m nervous to post much here, but I’ll note this from Simon Barrow:

I write this without an ounce of ill-will towards any individuals within Britain’s royal family, and without in any way wishing to be churlish about anybody’s wedding – whether they are famous or not.

Yeah right!

As a child many of us went through the phase of acquiring CB radios. This gave us the excitement of chatting to complete strangers, albeit within a fairly short radius. But one aspect of this fad really sticks in my mind. The principal conversation topic revolved around CB radios.

We used CB radio’s to talk to strangers about CB radio’s.

I mention this because this post is another post relating to blogging and it tickled me to remember the parallel with CB radio’s.

I wonder how many search engine hits I’ll get from folk searching for CB radio bloggers? They’ll be disappointed that’s for sure. Sorry CB Radio enthusiasts.

Anyway, enough of my Saturday morning randomness, down to business.

Dylan of the Reluctant Sinner has been invited to the first Vatican Blogmeet which coincides with the Beatification of Pope John Paul II. He’s duly preparing and I feel excited for him.

It was a remarkable coincidence that shortly after Dylan floated the idea of a Catholic guild of bloggers he was invited to Rome for the Vatican’s Bloggers’ Meeting.

Before jetting off Dylan has posted his thoughts on the Catholic blogging “vocation” and mentions the upcoming Catholic Guild of Bloggers meeting, which is due to take place next Saturday (7th May) at Westminster Cathedral.

All details can be found here.

Here’s some of what he had to say, but it’s worth reading in it’s entirety:

…..It is well known that blogging tends to amplify feelings and attitudes, and provides what many would consider to be an artificial way of engaging with others. It’s much easier to condemn a man, even a bishop or one who should know better, when we don’t have to look him in the eye. It can also, conversely, be easier to talk about loving others whilst tapping on a keyboard at home than if we had to deal with the same people in real life. So, for me, blogging must always be kept in perspective. It is not the real world, but it does contain very worldly temptations. Anything that feeds my pride or ego cannot be good – and, sometimes, the sense of satisfaction when posting criticisms on my blog or when “going for the kill” (joining in that journalistic mentality that sees men merely as stories, not persons loved by God) does lead to an over-abundance of pride and self-will. Blogging can be dangerous, even if it’s something I feel presently called to do.

So, I really think that bloggers – those of us who travel through uncharted waters and who face demons who are more than ready to see Christians fight amongst themselves in public – really need to be spiritually healthy. For that to happen, we need the support of others, especially those who know what it’s like to blog. No Christian is an island, we cannot be followers of Christ without being deeply united to all his other followers. We need other (flesh and blood) human beings, to share our pilgrimages with. We need the Church, and should never think ourselves above that need. We also need the mutual support of others, especially those who tread similar paths to our own. This, more than any other, is the reason behind wanting to set up a guild (or group) for Catholic bloggers.

[.....]

I honestly believe that a Guild of Catholic Bloggers would help those of us who blog grow closer to each other in love. We would be able to meet face to face, in the real world, and get to know one another as Christians should. We could care for each others’ needs, physical and spiritual, and pray together in unity and peace. It might be possible to use Guild meetings to seek reconciliation and forgiveness – for, in the heat of online arguments, it can be too easy to fall out or say things that are designed to hurt. A Guild of Catholic Bloggers could also arrange for spiritual retreats and conferences, or workshops designed to get the most out of blogging. It could also facilitate talks by experienced and holy bloggers, who would be able to guide those who wish to turn their blogs into tools of the new evangelisation or aids to holiness.

[.....]

I have become acutely aware of the dangers of blogging since I began writing as A Reluctant Sinner, and for that reason feel a need to experience help from others, especially those who understand the blogger’s “vocation”. As much as I enjoy writing and finding stories, sharing my opinions or making virtual friends, I would much rather meet with people in the flesh. I also wish I could sometimes attend Masses specifically geared towards those who blog as Catholics – if only to pray with them, to worship God with them, and to listen to a homily that might speak to me as a Catholic blogger. It is for all these reasons that I think a Guild of Catholic Bloggers is necessary. It is also for this reason that I think the Holy Spirit is prompting our pastors and leaders to engage with the sometimes frightening world of the blogosphere!

…..read all

Steve over at Undeception has touched on something in his blog post that has been niggling at the back of my mind for some time.

Ideally ours will be a journey of constant discovery and acquisition of new ideas and information. This may well involve – as it has in my case – complete paradigm shifts and reevaluation of deeply held belief systems. As I do not exclude faith from this intellectual process, for me, it is not unreasonable to abandon certain tenets of my beliefs in the light of new experiences, knowledge and understanding.

Is this not the very process of growing and maturing in our faith?

Surprisingly many disagree. These folk tend to be very fixed and absolute in their understanding, with a leaning towards ‘black and white’ thinking. In terms of the Scriptures they also tend towards a literalistic – and I would say overly simplistic – approach. I can make this assertion as I used to be this way and recognise it in others.

Now a problem may arise – as Steve points out – if you are a published writer and your views change. How do you go about retracting and asserting your new mindset? You can subtly revise previously published claims in subsequent books, however, your original work is still ‘out there’.

If you publish a book the likelihood is that you will have your ideas challenged, and it may be through this process that you come to revise your position. The same is equally true for blogging.

I’ve been blogging for a couple of years now and I will openly admit that I have shifted significantly in my beliefs and understanding, which is attested to in one area by my ongoing conversion to Catholicism.

It has been due to the blogging process that much of this change has taken place. Being constantly engaged by commentators and other bloggers forces you to hone your position and may expose weaknesses in thinking that need to be addressed.

The tendency for me as a result of this process, was to firstly swing into an antipodal position, which of course ends up as flawed as the original position. I like to think that I have now reached a more nuanced and balanced thinking style, however, ours is a journey and I am far from perfect in my thinking. I suspect  – and hope – there will be many more challenges and changes as I progress and mature.

This process can be quite painful, as it involves acknowledging that we may hold erroneous beliefs – not easy in itself – and paradigm shifts involve much cognitive realignment, which can be deeply uncomfortable. But I wouldn’t have it any other way. The single most deadly moment, would be the day I believe I have the truth, without error, and no longer need to learn.

As a blogger, undergoing this process is very public and can be harmful to readership. I’ve lost a good many folk along the way as some have felt betrayed, as I moved along in my thinking. I’ve also gained many super readers for which I’m grateful.

Steve – in his post – acknowledges his transitions in thought and confesses there are ideas published on his site years ago, that argue viewpoints he’s incredibly embarrassed of nowadays.

Same here!

Thankfully, the vast majority of visitors to this blog will access more recent posts, however, many also access older posts via search engines that frankly do not represent my current thinking. This causes me a ‘cringe’ moment and the reader will become misled about what I now believe.

Unfortunately some of the highest and most consistently accessed pages on this blog are such as these.

What to do?

I – like Steve – have thought of methods of combating this problem, such as mass-deletion or inserting some sort of retrospective caveat in the posts, however, the work involved in this would be enormous with some four and half thousand posts to go through.

I have opted to leave the pages as they are and accept that my current thinking can be ‘exposed’ as significantly altered from previous years. That’s a risk I’m prepared to take for the sake of transparency and honesty.

I have had the experience of being accused a ‘turncoat’ or even a ‘chameleon’ for changing my stance, but in truth, I’m going to view this as evidence of my progress, rather than regression.

In every other aspect of life we hope to increase our knowledge and understanding in order to change, improve and mature, why should this not be the same with our walk of faith?

No doubt one day in the future, I’ll reflect back on posts I’ve recently written and encounter a cringe moment. Perhaps this very blog post will be one of them.

A touching blog post by Sally – A Methodist Minsiter – on ministering to the bereaved. Well worth a read.

I’m not one of those swept up in a frenzy of excitement about the upcoming royal wedding, but then again, I’ll watch it and no doubt enjoy it.

I think it’s absolutely wonderful that somewhere in the region of a third of the world – some 2 billion souls – are expected to watch this event.

Why do I think this absolutely wonderful?

Because it is a holy and beautiful sacrament instituted by our God, taking place in the house of God, in the name of our God, and under His auspices.

Archbishop Rowan Williams articulates eloquently some of what I’m trying to convey:

Prince William and Catherine are making this commitment very much in the public eye and they’re sensible, realistic young people.  They know what the cost of that might be.  They’ve thought that through.  And because of that they will need the support, the solidarity and the prayers of all those who are watching today.  We have to be witnesses in an active sense: the kind of witnesses who really support what’s going on.  To be a witness is more than to be a spectator and I hope that will be part of people’s experience at the time of the wedding.

It’s been a real pleasure to get to know the couple.  I’ve been very struck by the way in which William and Catherine have approached this great event.  They’ve thought through what they want for themselves, but also what they want to say.  They’ve had a very simple, very direct picture of what really matters about this event.  I think that they have a clear sense of what they believe they’re responsible to.  They’re responsible to the whole society, and responsible to God for their relationship.  And I think it’s impressive that they’ve had that simplicity about it, they’ve known what matters, what’s at the heart of all this. They’ve worked towards that.  Because I think that they are deeply unpretentious people, and that message about taking that responsibility sensibly, realistically, courageously, comes over very strongly in conversation with them.

Any priest or minister conducting a wedding is bound to feel a huge sense of privilege.  You’re invited into some intimate places in people’s lives.  You’re invited to take part in a very significant moment, a moment of hope; a moment of affirmation about people’s present and future.  And I’ve felt very privileged to be part of this event for those reasons.  Here are young people sending a message of hopefulness, sending a message of generosity across the world.  And it’s my privilege to be able to bless that in the name of God, to witness it in the name of God, and to send them on their way.

The Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, will give the wedding address.

I know these asylum seekers could easily fake conversion to Christianity from Islam in order to dupe the authorities, however, if they are for real, they are dead men if deported.

There’s a little storm of controversy surrounding the revelation that the BBC’s upcoming programme entitled: ’Inside the human body’, will screen the dying moments of an 84-year-old cancer sufferer.

The BBC is accused of crossing the rubicon and ‘normalising real death on TV’. Concerns over ethics of the BBC screening such  a moment have been raised and the allegation levelled that this is a ratings stunt.

I for one am glad the BBC are doing this, and I speak as one who has had the privilege of working closely with the dying.

The dying man gave his permission for the BBC to film this, and as long as it is handled in a sensitive and appropriate manner, I can’t agree with the objections.

I see nothing wrong in the BBC’s actions, in fact, I think it is positively healthy as death is a natural and normal part of life.

The process of dying has become sanitised and detached from our experience as we relegate the process to hospitals. In the past of course, most deaths took place at home, exposing us to – and normalising – the dying process within the context of the family experience.

Consigning death to the hospital environment, even with our excellent palliative care, has gone some way in elevating our fear of the dying process. It’s made the experience alien to us and this has provided fuel for death cult assisted suicide advocates.

Death is as much a part of the human experience as birth and I find it ironic that Christians should be among those voicing concern over this, especially given that these same Christians were accusing the BBC of cheerleading euthanasia just last week.

It’s about time we re-familiarise ourselves with the process of dying and this programme will go some way towards this. Hopefully our superb palliative care will be on show as this would help to undermine the euthanasia movement.

As Christians especially, death should hold no fear for us, and if folks were more exposed to the reality of their mortality, perhaps they would be more open to the Christian message.

What is different about a postulated single deity, at least as the mainstream Christian theological tradition has conceived “God”, is that “God” refers not only to a character in the story, but the reason there is anything to tell stories about in the first place, or people to tell them.

SOURCE

Background information here.

A Catholic charity which wants exemption from equality laws which would force it to provide its adoption services to gay couples has had its latest appeal rejected.

Catholic Care, which is based in the Diocese of Leeds, has spent more than two years arguing it will have to give up its work finding homes for children if it has to comply with recent equality regulations which prohibit discrimination against same-sex couples wanting to adopt.

The complex legal debate ended up in the High Court last year before it was referred back to the Charity Commission which again refused to back Catholic Care’s stance.

A tribunal dismissed the charity’s appeal, supporting the Charity Commission’s ruling. In its decision, the tribunal acknowledged there would be “a loss to society if the charity’s skilled staff were no longer engaged in the task of preparing potential adopters to offer families to children awaiting an adoption placement.”

….continue

Full Charity Tribunal judgement here in PDF.